You must log in or # to comment.
I never learned peer review as anything more than others in the field reviewing the paper and confirming it meets standards. Its like logic vs truth. Peer review is like proofreading. Is the structure of the experiment proper. Is there controls. Is the statistical analysis proper. so on and so forth. Honestly though science is dependent on replication which used to be a sort of competition so it worked. Oh you think this is this and this is how you proved it. Well I will see for myself and I will lambast you if it does not work. It was kinda personal with the field before modern times. Competition was very direct. Now no lab wants to do anything but something they can say is new and a discovery. I feel at least 50% of public science funding should be for experiment replication
Sounds like maybe you learned about it from some kind of actual education, not just reading about it on social media. That’s cheating.
It’s a numbers game.
- X submits paper to Journal 1, and peers A,B,C reject it.
- X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 2, and only peers D and E reject it.
- X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 3, and only peer G rejects it
- X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 4, and no one rejects it.
Journal 4 increments prestige, Scientist X increments prestige, but nothing true or good is actually gained.
Science.
Did peer F get murdered for indicating they were going to reject the paper? 🔍🧐
peer F accepted the paper
FTo doubt
NOT science. At all. That’s publication and clout. Two things science distinctly is NOT, but needs because information must still disseminate in some way.
He typed using technology that wouldn’t exist but for Science.
I believe in the scientific method. I believe in peer review.
I just don’t like that scientific journals have become so commodified that a lesser journal would accept volumes of bad science and bad review in order to boost its rankings whilst boosting the prestige of the scientist who is measured on the quantity of their work and not the quality.
Entire paper mills exist purely for this reason, and it’s a scourge on the scientific community.
Fair. TY for clarifying
Yeah that wasn’t at all the impression I got from their first comment
there are a couple journals where peer review means the former. one that i can think of is Organic Sytheses orgsyn.org
The ones that fail peer review go from “unexpected result” to “the fuck were you actually doing?!?”
Thank the greed. Even bad results should be kept. It’s still knowledge. To get closer to a goal, many mistakes are made and we have to learn from them. Using the scientific method to find out that something does not work is still valuable.
This is a lesson I try to teach my kids every day. When they get upset they can’t do something, I ask, “well whatd you learn?” And sometimes it’s as simple as “that didn’t work.” Other times they think for a second they try something new.
Failure is a learning opportunity. Take advantage if it.
Never,
It’s peer review not peer verified.
English is my second language so I don’t get this post, it always meant someone else read it.
Agreed. Reviewing literally means just reading and making comments
I think to some of us a review is seen as a verification of veracity.
I honestly always mistook peer review as OPs post so I guess I was 37 when I learned that…
When I have reviewed IT system design changes, my favorite comment for correct-looking changes has been “looks good, I look forward to seeing whether it works”
I’m just happy they learned what peer review means. I doubt even a third of Americans know what it means or its impact on their lives
Gonna need to build a second LHC!
Need another James Webb too, better get started.
You can take the same data, or data from different observations, and show that the analysis is sound.
I recently read an interesting article proposing to get rid of the current peer review system: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The argument was roughly this: for the unfathomable (unpaid) hours spent on peer review, it’s not very effective. Too much bad research still gets published and too much good research gets rejected. Science would also not be a weak-link problem but a strong-link problem, i.e., scientific progress would not depend on the quality of our worst research but of that of our best research (which would push through anyway in time). Pretty interesting read, even though I find it difficult to imagine how we would transition to such a system.
Wait deadass?!?!? If so then 20 lol
Best part is the reviewers don’t get paid for their work, the publishers pocket all of the money they get from selling journals
While charging researchers to publish the paper and the reader for accessing it. If they can get away with it. It’s a fucking scam, thus arxiv and others exist.
I’ve personally had much less respect for global academia ever since I learned how publishing journals can demand so much from researchers and their audience, while providing so little.
In my field of research, there seems to be a recent push for artifact evaluation. It’s a separate process which is also optional but you get to brag about the fact that you get badges if your experiment results were replicated.
There’s also some push back against this since it’s additional work, but I think it’s a step in the right direction.
What did you think the “review” part of it meant other than reviewing it?
They thought the review process was more arduous than looking at some newly discovered scientific fact that no one had ever known before and saying “yeah that seems self-evident.”
If you feel like that’s reductive, now you know why I felt like responding
So it’s like a crowd strike code review
Scientists can get really petty in peer review. They won’t be able to catch if the data was manipulated or faked, but they’ll be able to catch everything else. Things such as inconclusive or unconvincing data, wrongful assumptions, missing data that would complement and further prove the conclusion, or even trivial things such as a sentence being unclear.
It generally works as long as you can trust that the author isn’t dishonest
A LOT of things work without safety nets if people engage honestly.
The problem, with FAR more than science, is many, many people are distinctly NOT honest.
I do trust scientists about peer review more than code reviews. This is how I imagine the crowd strike reviewer.
Damn I guess I was today years old. I remember in high school chemistry class we were taught about peer review and had to do it for each other, except the way we did was actually testing and replicating results, so that cemented the misconception.
In my field, peer review was “obviously hasn’t read enough Foucault”.
